header-logo header-logo

14 August 2013
Issue: 7573 / Categories: Features , Judicial line
printer mail-detail

Travelling too far

On applications for permission to remove a child from the jurisdiction, a Cafcass report on the child’s wishes and feelings will often be ordered...

Q On applications for permission to remove a child from the jurisdiction, a Cafcass report on the child’s wishes and feelings will often be ordered. In my experience this will lead to a full s 7 Children Act 1989 report being produced which contains a recommendation as to what the court should do and sometimes in ignorance of the special criteria which have to be adopted in relocation cases. The litigation will be inflamed as a result. How in practice should this problem be tackled?
 
A The order of the court will no doubt have made clear what Cafcass is being ordered to do.  If it is not clear on the face of the order, the legal representatives (if there are any) will need to ask the court to make a more precise order before work starts, to avoid problems later.  One possible step is to order that the report is

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll